EPTOn November 23 2011 12:48 eSuBuildings wrote:With gigantic armies and gigantic maps,
You really talk about BW? Really? A game with 200 supply, most units taking 1+ supply, you just cant have gigantic armies.
I feel Starcraft 2 is very passive. - Page 12
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
shinarit
Hungary900 Posts
You really talk about BW? Really? A game with 200 supply, most units taking 1+ supply, you just cant have gigantic armies. | ||
|
Bd.Snake
Australia163 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On November 23 2011 22:03 Angra wrote: That's an awfully stubborn viewpoint. You don't want SC2 to improve as a game? I want it to improve but i don't really see the benefit of complaining time and time again about the same stuff in this forum. Add to that the fact that many BW fans are very rigid in what they want and how things should be and we have this SC2 vs BW debate over and over. Neither SC2 or BW fans are being objective and people want different things so there's no progress to be had. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
BW is like real war. Huge armies, many battles, many fronts. You don't get clusterfucks of units going at it once, and then the winner emerges (and it's usually gg). That is because in BW most of your units will end up sitting at the back doing nothing at all if you do so. So the idea is to get as large a concave as possible...if someone tried to deathball their army against a person concaving on many fronts, they will get owned. And if it's impossible to break that deathball due to insane range/high ground by concaving you can always send task forces to take out their expansions. Deathballing may possibly win you the battle but will lose the war - the enemy will simply remacro and own your deathball in the time it takes to cross the map. I honestly fail to understand who enjoys this ball vs ball combat. Extreme lethality + smaller maps + low number of bases (well, not for zerg, but you can march into his main...) = boring game. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 23 2011 22:29 shadymmj wrote: I honestly fail to understand who enjoys this ball vs ball combat. I honestly fail to understand who watches professional SC2 in late 2011 and sees ball vs ball combat. Why is it that SC2 players are expected to put up with pages and pages of terrible BW comparisons and vitriol calling SC2 a "lower standard" and "inferior" and "boring"? Because it seems anyone doing the same in the BW forums concerning SC2 would be verbally disemboweled within seconds. I think these always end up being terrible threads that are nothing more than subjective opinion being rationalized with nonsensical argumentation and faux evidence. They are nothing but flamebait and result in nothing but circular arguments. Post your subjective thoughts on the game on your blog, please. | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:00 eSuBuildings wrote: @AnachronisticAnarchy, Watch this TvT between Flash and Fantasy Now watch this TvT between Boxer and Rain http://tv.majorleaguegaming.com/videos/72872-winners-semis-boxer-vs-rain-g1 Sure, the Boxer vs Rain game will have it's moments in the early to mid game that will have crowds jeering out of their seats, but in the late game it becomes (like I pointed out in my OP) nothing but a waiting game whereas Flash and Fantasy's late game has so much movement going on inside it. starcraft still has years and years to get to that level where people will know that they can do to be active and not get in a disadvantage because of it | ||
|
Mouzone
3937 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:00 memcpy wrote: There's always something each player can do to gain advantages during a game, even during late game stalemates. For example, in ZvZ player can use burrowed infestors to sneak into mineral lines and in TvT players can use cloaked ghosts and drops to bypass tank lines. As Starcraft 2 continues to develop, players who are able to use harassment and small engagements will come out on top. The current style of sitting back and macroing while waiting for a large engagement works because both players are playing passively. As overall player skill and game understanding rises I feel like we will see more engagements and harass from both sides in order to gain minor advantages which will eventually snowball into a victory. Just remember how people played back in beta. No drops in TvP, basically every game was a 1 base timing attack, no infestor harass, etc. Basically, once the matchups are more developed and players can no longer win by turtling all game long there will be more action. This wins the thread (having read like 10 replies!). This "issue" is related to the one where people claim apm doesn't really matter in SC2. To grasp why it does matter as much as in BW, you need to understand how many different, often small, things you can do during a game to gain an advantage of varying magnitude. The reason we aren't seeing as many small skirmishes etc. at this point can be attributed to: 1. Lack of complete knowledge of the game. People believe they'll fall behind too much to win if they screw up some harassment by falling behind in macro while doing it or just performing it poorly in general. This leads to many people afraid of doing anything at all. 2. People don't know which harassment styles are cost effective or they can't make them cost effective. For instance we're starting to see a lot more sentry drops now which was believed to be too risky/ineffective before. 3. Too low apm to perform effective harassment while still maintaining perfect macro. Only a select few players master this in SC2 at the moment. | ||
|
ajabberwok
United States59 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:05 SkimGuy wrote: The game I used to demonstrate the amount of action that is possible in BW is game 1 of n.Die_soO vs JangBi in the OSL semis: I bet you're unable to find that much action in any SC2 game xd Idra vs Puma (ZvT), (who both played BW) on Tal'Darim Altar at IEM had a lot of drops and action around the map. I wish I could find the Live VOD rather than this re-broadcast: | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On November 23 2011 22:39 yeint wrote: I honestly fail to understand who watches professional SC2 in late 2011 and sees ball vs ball combat. Why is it that SC2 players are expected to put up with pages and pages of terrible BW comparisons and vitriol calling SC2 a "lower standard" and "inferior" and "boring"? Because it seems anyone doing the same in the BW forums concerning SC2 would be verbally disemboweled within seconds. I think these always end up being terrible threads that are nothing more than subjective opinion being rationalized with nonsensical argumentation and faux evidence. They are nothing but flamebait and result in nothing but circular arguments. Post your subjective thoughts on the game on your blog, please. I watch sc2 streams all the time, and I still see it. I think SC2 players just compare it to how SC2 was before. Its mostly still ball vs ball, just not as much. You really need to look at BW games as see how substantially different we are talking about. Can people post some SC2 vods and I bet I can point out what people mean. (Would prefer TvP, PvP, ZvP, ZvZ as this is what we are mostly referring to) EDIT: Watching above. (Although TvT and TvZ is an exception due to tanks/banelings) | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On November 23 2011 22:39 yeint wrote: I honestly fail to understand who watches professional SC2 in late 2011 and sees ball vs ball combat. . just about every game of sc2 i've seen has resulted in tightly packed hordes of units going at it, maybe with 1 drop happening on the side. of course the number of units may vary, but they are nevertheless tightly packed. this is of course discounting a player attacking into a perfectly set up defensive position. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
Zeroxk
Norway1244 Posts
On November 23 2011 22:52 sluggaslamoo wrote: I watch sc2 streams all the time, and I still see it. I think SC2 players just compare it to how SC2 was before. Its mostly still ball vs ball, just not as much. You really need to look at BW games as see how substantially different we are talking about. Can people post some SC2 vods and I bet I can point out what people mean. (Would prefer TvP, PvP, ZvP, ZvZ as this is what we are mostly referring to) EDIT: Watching above. (Although TvT and TvZ is an exception due to tanks/banelings) Cherry picking matchups are we. Look at the common factor in most of the matchups you want, PROTOSS. One could say it's more of a problem with the race but you extrapolate it to extend to all races? | ||
|
Fleshcut
Germany592 Posts
| ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
On November 23 2011 20:58 gruff wrote: I don't think that's very relevant. Impossible to say but starcraft is such a strong brand in itself that sc2 would probably done fine without very much pr from Blizzard. It's hugely relevant. Do you think SC2 would be nearly as popular if GSL was Korean only with no outside promotion like OSL? Would the GSL even exist in the same form it does today without support from Blizzard? Money talks and ignoring that factor is just as ridiculous as any of the other biased comparisons people like to make. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On November 23 2011 23:02 Fleshcut wrote: I really really hate it when people compare the obviously more balanced and figured out BW with the new SC2. SC2 has also great aggressive play but even if it's not that good you always have to differ BW which has been played for a decade now AND is a completely other game than SC2 which is not even 1 1/2 years old. It's just stupid. I disagree that SC2 is more passive, or that BW is more aggressive, but I think that the battles just last much longer in BW. With very good micro and smart tactics you can make units last for a ridiculous amount of time against strong opponents. This may be a reason why BW may feel more "aggressive". On November 23 2011 22:51 ajabberwok wrote: Fast forwarded to 27 mins and what do I see...yes, the infamous broodlord/infestor ball going against the terran marine tank viking ball. The winner of this battle... ...surprise, goes on to win the game shortly after. | ||
|
RaKooNs
United Kingdom397 Posts
On November 23 2011 13:00 eSuBuildings wrote: @AnachronisticAnarchy, Watch this TvT between Flash and Fantasy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m71uQWQE1F8 Now watch this TvT between Boxer and Rain http://tv.majorleaguegaming.com/videos/72872-winners-semis-boxer-vs-rain-g1 Sure, the Boxer vs Rain game will have it's moments in the early to mid game that will have crowds jeering out of their seats, but in the late game it becomes (like I pointed out in my OP) nothing but a waiting game whereas Flash and Fantasy's late game has so much movement going on inside it. Absolutely vital mistake to make, flash and fantasy have been playing / played BW for 10+ years, whereas boxer and rain have only played sc2 for 1. When sc2 is 10 years old you will see even more harassment / moving about that flash and fantasy did in this game. | ||
|
Utinni
Canada1196 Posts
| ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
On November 23 2011 23:08 RaKooNs wrote: Absolutely vital mistake to make, flash and fantasy have been playing / played BW for 10+ years, whereas boxer and rain have only played sc2 for 1. When sc2 is 10 years old you will see even more harassment / moving about that flash and fantasy did in this game. Kobe Bryant has been playing basketball for years. Little Timmy on his 7th grade basketball team has only been playing for a few months. Timmy might be amazing in 10 years but for now he can't even dunk. In what universe does it make sense for more people to be watching Timmy than Kobe? | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Sc2 is faster, throwing away your army less effective and reproducing is a bit faster as well. And your opponent not paying attention to the army is almost never gonna happen in sc2. So you want to get the opponent off guard. Because the attacker is clumping and well aoes beat that sort of move pretty heavily attacking directly is often not a wise idea. In bw it was no problem to hold a good position against a full army with only half of your units. In sc2 well unit army is 1/2 of that of bw. (tank for example is 1/3 as good as in bw x3 supply wise against light units). Basically a moving units and hoping them to hit something undefended like in bw doesn't work to get the opponent away from the main army long enough. And i have seen alot of foreign bw tournaments, when sc2 was announced and gave bw another boost. Most of the games went cut the map in half and mine out. Try a bit of harass etc, but the frontline never really moved, though one side threw their whole army into an attack pushed the opponent back then got cleared and pushed away again. The maps effectively did that sort of map divide, because you could split the map in half with all your units, leaving no path past the army. Bit hard to do that in sc2. Well bw mapmakers managed to make maps though where its almost impossible to defend everything, you basically have your save expansions, but then there are those that are not save and you can't let the opponent take them (so they always send their reproduction around knowing they will always do enough damage and trade atleast enough to not get overrun). In sc2 you can have 70 workers on 3 bases and its still quiet okay for mining, in bw it was a lil different especially for the utterly needed gas. Gold expansions should lurr players outside on the map for an advantage, but sadly they are to strong early game in a few matchups. So in bw basically the maps made bw look that way, while the first maps made bw look like sc2 and even more extreme. (especially blue storm was a map that was mined out before any engagement happened lol) Maybe it will happen in sc2 too. Maybe we will end up with 1 geyir and 6 patches as normal expansions (even the main). Saying: go out there and take the damned 4th or you are screwed eco wise. (don't scream about gas starvation, i even see alot of toss with overgas in macro games). Mules would have to get 3/4 times effective, which would mean mapmaker made nerf, which is pretty scary ground. Though in bw people changed the editor as well so they could make large ramps and minerals on minerals or more the one destructable building on top of each other.. Lets just wait and see. One change is removing golds that has happened lately, though adding rocks there would have solved the problem with them. Its a try and error system the maps go through, every try revealing new information <3. PS: i play more bw, then sc2 and i like bw for how it works. But sc2 is also really interesting for how it works and for me personally more challenging then bw. (except eco wise, eco wise sc2 is a bit too simply, but maybe thats why the rest is so much more challenging and fun) | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On November 23 2011 23:13 BrosephBrostar wrote: Kobe Bryant has been playing basketball for years. Little Timmy on his 7th grade basketball team has only been playing for a few months. Timmy might be amazing in 10 years but for now he can't even dunk. In what universe does it make sense for more people to be watching Timmy than Kobe? That's basically the situation you're describing. just pointing out, this analogy would only make sense if starcraft 2 and brood war were the same games, just as Kobe and Timmy are playing the same sport (basketball). | ||
| ||
